The American bishops have, with alacrity, rejected President
Obama’s proposed “accommodation” on the contraception mandate in no
uncertain terms. Their response came before the sun had set on the
very day of his announcement.
Noting that the “proposal continues to involve needless
government intrusion in the internal governance of religious
institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious
people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions,”
the Catholic hierarchy virtually guaranteed more political
hemorrhaging for the White House.
The bishops indicated that they were not consulted in
advance of the President’s announcement and had just received
information about it “for the first time this morning
[Friday].”
“The only complete solution to this religious liberty
problem is for HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] to
rescind the mandate of these objectionable services,” stated the
bishops in their statement released through the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops (USCB).
President Obama’s proposal for an “accommodation,” not a
compromise, claimed to shift the costs of the contraceptive
services to the insurance carriers of the religious institutions as
if they would provide such services for free for an indefinite
period of time.
The proposal is really no accommodation at all since, as
the Wall Street Journal
opined in a lead editorial (“Immaculate Contraception,”
February 11-12, 2012), prices will eventually find an equilibrium,
i.e., the carriers will eventually price their policy premiums
accordingly which, in turn, means their customers, the religious
institutions, will still be footing the bill.
“So you almost have to admire the absurdity of the new
plan President Obama floated yesterday: The government will now
write a rule that says the best things in life are ‘free,’
including contraception,” wrote the Journal. “Thus, a
political mandate will be compounded by an uneconomic one — in
other words, behold the soul of ObamaCare.”
As the bishops stated, “coverage is still provided as a
part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same
way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting
employer. This too raises serious moral concerns.”
(Emphasis in the original.)
There are no free contraceptives just as there are no free
lunches. The White House is performing a sleight-of-hand
trick, or
shell game, to disguise the commandeering of resources from
religious institutions to pay for the mandated
services.
The bishops also noted that “it would appear that
self-insuring religious employers, and religious insurance
companies, are not exempt from this mandate.” Seeing and raising
the President, they pointed out that his proposal does not have any
“clear protection for key stakeholders — for self-insured
religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit
employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious
insurers; and for individuals” — which “is unacceptable
and must be corrected.” (Emphasis in the
original.)
So what does President Obama do now? Does he rebuff the
bishops and guarantee a complete and total mobilization against him
on a subject that is not only about contraception and abortion but
also implicates fundamental issues of religious liberty and the
First Amendment while contributing to the escalating controversy
over his entire health care plan?
Or does he rescind the HHS mandate and risk the wrath of
Planned Parenthood, feminists, and major donors in Hollywood and
Manhattan?
Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington
Post, articulated a Machiavellian analysis on MSNBC’s “Morning
Joe” last week. Maybe the White House wants a controversy on a
high-profile social issue to help Senator Rich Santorum, at the
expense of Governor Mitt Romney, since the contraception debate
seems to energize the Senator’s supporters. Given that there is no
daylight between Santorum, Romney and Newt Gingrich on this
subject, Robinson’s analysis is more like whistling past the
political graveyard.
Alienating the Catholic hierarchy and community on a
matter that cuts to the heart of the Church’s historic and
consistent understanding of itself and its mission for over 2000
years is politically foolhardy at best, suicidal at worst. Stalin
once asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” The President
is about to find out.
President Obama, a denizen of Hyde Park in Chicago, will
come to regret not listening to that savvy, Irish politician from
another part of town,
Bill Daley.
